MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220814219 · doi:10.3390/robotics11020032

An Analysis of Power Consumption of Fluid-Driven Robotic Arms Using Isotropy Index: A Proof-of-Concept Simulation-Based Study

2022· article· en· W4220814219 on OpenAlexafffund
Yaser Maddahi, Kourosh Zareinia

Bibliographic record

VenueRobotics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityCogmation Robotics (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRyerson University
KeywordsKinematicsTorqueRobotPower (physics)Power consumptionIsotropyComputer scienceControl engineeringControl theory (sociology)Measure (data warehouse)Work (physics)Motion (physics)Robotic armSimulationEngineeringArtificial intelligenceControl (management)Mechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The manipulability of a robotic arm may be defined based on ease of motion in different directions or ease of applying force/torque. In this study, we use manipulability measures to investigate how the kinematics of robots can be employed to calculate the optimal power required to drive the actuation systems of their arms. We hypothesize that the isotropy measure is related to the power consumption of the robotic arm. In addition to theoretical aspects, we consider practical applications that can minimize power consumption in robotic systems. Since the method is simple to implement and has no assumption on the robot’s work environment or dependence on information on the main power supply, manipulability measures can be used as a tool to predict the power consumption of robotic manipulators.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoboticsSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207